By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Two mementous events marked last week: the impeachment of US President Bill Clinton and the US-British missile raids against Iraq. The raids were triggered by the Richard Butler UNSCOM Report, Clinton's impeachment by the Kenneth Starr report. The findings of both reports have been the object of wide controversies, and it is to be questioned whether the world is a safer place, or exposed to still greater upheavals, after having put the president of the only remaining superpower on trial for criminal offenses, and subjected Iraq to four nights of devastating blows. From the viewpoint of substance, the US and Britain have not been able to come forward with indisputable evidence that Iraq still conceals arms of mass destruction, or that these weapons, if they exist, constitute a real threat to neighbouring countries. From the legal viewpoint, the legitimacy of the American-British raids is widely contested: to what extent were the two powers entitled to intervene without previously getting the formal approval of the UN Security Council, or even notifying it? A majority of the permanent members of the Security Council (three against two) openly opposed the raids. And now that the raids are over, it is worth questioning whether Saddam Hussein has been weakened or strengthened. American officials have assessed the impact of the raids as having put back Iraq's armament programmes for at least one year. Does this mean that another similar strike will be necessary in a period not exceeding one year? Can such a shaky relationship with Iraq be sustained? And what about the repercussions of the raids on the entire Middle East? Osama Bin Laden could not have hoped for a more favourable development, nor better justification, to escalate terrorism all over the world. The American administration might have believed that, after Clinton's visit to Israel and Gaza, time had come for a showdown with Saddam. Clinton's major achievement throughout the trip was to have induced the Palestinian Authority to expurgate the Palestinian National Charter of all clauses implying Israel's destruction, thus bringing about an American perspective, become the yardstick for American-Arab state-to-state relations in general. Even Egypt, the Arab country that first promoted peace with Israel, is proving, according to the Jerusalem Post, to have "never reconciled itself to Israel as a sovereign Jewish presence in the region" and that "it seeks to keep the cake and eat it too: to reap the 1979 accord's tangible benefits ($2 billion a year from Washington among others) while acting as leader of the Arab front confronting Israel"! This vitriolic Israeli article is obviously hostile to Egypt, but it reflects a state of mind that is not limited to Israeli politicians only. A showdown with Iraq would be calling back to order all Arab states, even those usually described as Washington's closest friends and allies. It must also be remembered that the recent steep drop in oil prices is making it difficult for the Gulf states to go on assuming their previously contracted engagements towards substantially financing America's military presence in the Gulf, and that some twisting of the arm may become necessary. But the question is whether striking Iraq, allegedly in the aim of bolstering security, makes the region less or more volatile. Instead of ensuring further stability, it may leave the local regimes with no other alternative than to come to terms with the forces of extremism. Both Sunni and Shi'a dignitaries have called for all-out Jihad after the horrific bombing of Iraqi cities, thus blurring the lines of demarcation between moderates and radicals in the Islamic movement. Another important factor in the deepening world crisis is the new characteristics of the arms race, now that the technology of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, is accessible to an over-wider range of medium-developed countries, as demonstrated by the recent nuclear blasts in India and Pakistan. Iraq is reputed to have been a pioneer in developing such weapons. Contrary to other states with similar ambitions, it has had to suffer from the consequences of its ill-advised invasion of Kuwait. In the aftermath of the devastating defeat inflicted by the Allied Forces, it found itself compelled to implement Security Council resolutions committing it to cooperate with UNSCOM in dismantling all the weapons of mass destruction it had stored. The game ever since has been a game of hide and seek. It is difficult to assess how accurate UNSCOM reports have been. Periodic revolts followed by intervals of compliance was the strategy Iraq adopted to force the Security Council to reconsider the sanctions, and to exploit whatever divisions could emerge between the great powers in the aim of weakening their grip. It is clear that the whole procedure masterminded by Washington is self-defeating because it can only deepen mutual suspicion and is bound, sooner or later, to trigger a showdown like the one we witnessed this week. What happened to Iraq signals to other states with similar security concerns that it could also happen to them. Actually, the threat of growing chaos is no longer only a characteristic of regional crises, but even of crises that emerge at the very summit of the international community. The decision to either bring to an end the systematic destruction of Iraq or let the raids continue was in the hands of an impeached American president, totally absorbed by how to salvage his presidency. How can world affairs be managed in such a manner, when the issue at stake is nuclear proliferation and, to use Clinton's own words, when politics of self-destruction seem to have the upper hand everywhere?
